So then before all the bullshit hit the fan, the real bullshit was some fool saying the Earth is not secure. Because believing that the Earth will sooner or later go into oblivion causes a stir that in some people does not turn out well. (Something that can be communicated through time, but that's not what we're taking about, so don't hit me)
doctrine of JWs, scriputes and apostates... your opinion.
by raxxxx 20 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Isidore
Everything that JW's teach contradicts scripture. Why? Because they read it outside the faith community that produced it, the Catholic Church. The New Testament was compiled by the Church, and therefore it is her book.
Terry, what makes you think, outside some personal bias against the Church that you seem to have, that the Catholic Church interprets scripture incorrectly?
-
cofty
Excellent points Terry.
I do think there is a case for being able to show that JW doctrine is internally inconsistent as well. Some people are not ready to go from where they are all the way to biblical inerrancy in one step. For me it was a step by step process. Different tools for different people I suppose.
-
GLTirebiter
The Catholic bible was ALL THE BIBLE THERE WAS for 1500 years.
I offer as a counter-example the Orthodox canon of 76 books. This includes all the books of the Catholic canon (some with different names and divisions) and two books unique to the Orthodox canon: 1 Esdras and 3 Maccabbees. Instead of having roots in St Jerome's Latin translation, they use Greek texts : Septuagint OT sources and Byzantine for the NT. There is more to the Christian world than western Europe and its former colonies.
-
glenster
Faith in God is a hope for a possible God beyond the known things. Liberal
Abrahmic religion is better at understanding faith as such, seeing old texts as
useful for faith but not inerrant, and keeping up to speed regarding the known
things (evolution, separation of church and state, homosexuality, no literal
great flood, etc.) God is possible beyond. The JWs leaders are not only not
liberal about faith but cynical businessmen about it and the known things.The JWs leaders misuse research material as supportive that isn't, force
points, omit pertinent evidence, and mischaracterize opposing views regarding
those things (evolution, homosexuality, etc.) they're not up to speed about.Worse, they claim to be God's chosen spokespeople for a literal 144,000 and
that it's demonstrated by a dozen or so distinctive stances they claim are
required by the Bible, and that this is shown so by the best evidence and
reasoning.This isn't true. The purpose of an expose isn't to make another cranky
editorial that "believers or non-believers different than me stink"--you
shouldn't want another of those anymore than I do. It's to show whatever
believers or non-believers evidentially that the JWs leaders use the same
cynical business methods, like Popoff's radio reciever, to establish their claim
of exclusiveness.The need is particularly there if anyone is hurt or killed for it, and the JWs
leaders draw attention for that as well (harsh shunning breaking up relation-
ships, their ban on the medical use of blood/major blood fractions, advice
regarding intolerant political leaders such as in Germany, Malawi, etc.).The harsh shunning of members who persist in disagreeing with it isn't based
on respect for faith understood as such or the known things but to keep them
from spreadng what they know to other paying customers.What I have on it is at the next link:
http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklynindex.htm -
Isidore
"I offer as a counter-example the Orthodox canon of 76 books. This includes all the books of the Catholic canon (some with different names and divisions) and two books unique to the Orthodox canon: 1 Esdras and 3 Maccabbees. Instead of having roots in St Jerome's Latin translation, they use Greek texts: Septuagint OT sources and Byzantine for the NT. There is more to the Christian world than western Europe and its former colonies."
The Council of Trent reaffirmed the historic canon of the Bible after it had been challenged by Protestants. The same books Trent affirmed had been affirmed by councils and popes prior to Trent. The first recorded council dealing with the canon was the Council of Rome, which was held in 382 under the presidency of Pope Damasus. Later councils, such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) and the ecumenical council of Florence (1438), reaffirmed the canon issued by the Council of Rome.
At all these councils the canon that was proclaimed included the seven "deuterocanonical" books (1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, and Sirach) and rejected 1 and 2 Esdras. Trent was not being inconsistent; it was reaffirming what the Church had always taught.
Not all the Orthodox churches accept both books of Esdras, with some accepting one and other churches accepting the other. Be that as it may, they all agree on the canon of the New Testament, and there is nothing in these extra books of the Orthodox in the Old Testament that conflict with the deposit of the faith.
The New Testament is a product of the Catholic Church, the Church did not come from the bible. Christ founded a Church, not a religion or a book.
-
designs
Ok Isidore what's up, what's the point.
-
N.drew
Ok Isidore what's up, what's the point.
designs Isidore's post is INFORMATION. Somebody says we should have more of it, and that we can't have "enough". So then eat it up!!
-
Fernando
Matthew 23 outlines externalism and supremacist self-righteousness effectively practiced and promoted by the Watchtower.
Romans 3 and 4 outlines imputed righteousness (or gifts-righteousness) which is a core element of the "good news" most hated by the Watchtower clergy.
www.defenceofthefaith.org/ThreeFaiths.htm (The Hindu, The Muslim and The Christian).
-
designs
Fernando- Try not buying into the anti-semetic rants of Matthew 23 it shows ignorance of Judaism and Jewish practices and beliefs.